Why the FTQ backs the Bloc

The Federation des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec has decided to officially support the Bloc. Since the 1970s, the FTQ has supported the PQ and since the entrance of the Nationalists in federal politics, it has also supported the Bloc.

The FTQ is the equivalent in Quebec of the CLC of which it is a sort of member. A «sort of», because it runs its politics in total independence from the CLC. FTQ regroups militant trade unions like CUPE, the CAW, and many others unions including US-led pseudo unions inherited from the cold war. It claims over 400 000 members but in reality, member-unions are very loosely associated with the FTQ itself. But the FTQ has another big card in its hands. It controls the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, which is a multi- billion union-led investment fund that was created with the support of the PQ back in the 1980s. The FTA pretends that it is saving thousands of jobs with that scheme. Critics say it is major bifurcation from traditional union work whereas FTQ officials are busy all year long in selling shares instead of organizing. But that's another debate.

Why the FTQ supports the Nationalists? There are many reasons for that. Historically, Quebec workers have faced a dual system of oppression and exploitation, as workers and as part of a Nation without a State. When I grew up in Montreal in the 1950s, business and work was almost completely controlled by an Anglo-Canadian elite whichwas the descendants of the British conquerors. Pierre Vallières wrote a provocative book about us, «White Niggers of America». It was hardly an exaggeration.

That situation changed over the struggles of the 1960s and the 1970swhen mass movements surged around social and national issues. Aminority of the activist's crowd was dreaming of a left alternative,but the majority thought that the best way out of our misery wasthrough the PQ which was at that time a left-center alliance. In itsearly years, the PQ had many of its leaders coming out of the labormovement, like the extremely popular Robert Burns. As time went by,the PQ was defeated in the first referendum, then had to «manage» thefiscal crisis of the 1980s and turned «social liberal» by the early1990s. Most of this left legacy was dilapidated.

But not completely. In the last PQ government for example (1995-1999),the then Minister of health (and today leader of the party) PaulineMarois established a universal daycare system with very low prices,making Quebec the lead in this matter. Time and again, variouspolicies were put in place along the lines of the Keynesian«compromise» although it became less and less with the big neoliberalsqueeze.

So now Canadian readers should understand why there is this historicalalliance. But that's only one part of the explanation. The flip sideis less buoyant. The FTQ, like many big institutions have avoidedtackling the difficult issue of an independent popular alternative.The CSN and the CSQ (the other big confederations) have initiated thedebate many times: should trade unions and other social movements formtheir own political voice? Often, these organizations have taken therisk of coming together with social and militant social movements, andeven supporting here and there political alternatives, not to thepoint however of putting their full weight into these new projects asthe Brazilian trade unions did with the PT in the 1980s. But with theFTQ, never ever. The leadership is content with supporting theNationalists, running the trade union «business» and avoiding rockingthe boat. For example, it refused to participate in the quitesuccessful Quebec Social Forum (August 2007) where over 5000 activistsfrom labor and community movements gathered to develop new strategies.

With Harper, the FTQ is justified to be worried. The manufacturingsector with its relatively well-paid and secure jobs is crashing. Onlya strong interventionist State could save it while establishing othermeasures to defend its competitiveness and sustainability. Obviously,it's not on Stephen's radar. The same fear is about the continuationand consolidation of the public sector which is mostly provincialmanaged but holds on because of federal payments. To be honest, it wasthe Liberals under Chrétien and Martin that already started to destroyKeynesianism. Harper is about consolidating these policies and givingthem an «ideological flavor».

The hope of the FTQ, and in fact many others in Quebec, is that astrong Bloc presence in the House of Commons will be able to preventHarper of imposing his views and that along with the other oppositionparties, it will be able to slow down the neoconservative revolution.You could think that is the reason why people will (or should) votefor the NPD. But in Quebec, the NPD is out of the game mostly, exceptwhere they can hope to tackle a «left» federalist vote which is areality that exists in a few sub-regions where are concentrated antirightwing and anti-Harper Anglophones and immigrants.

In many ways, I share the FTQ view on the «useful vote» («anything butHarper», which in reality means, in most areas of Quebec, voting forthe Bloc). However, I still think that progressive forces, on the longterm, should detach themselves from the Nationalists and create theirown political alternative. There is embryo -just an embryo- of thiscalled Quebecsolidaire. We can discuss this in the future.